By "draw" I did not mean to imply that our positions were equal. Nor did I mean that I was even close to agreeing with your positions. What I meant was that by your last post, I saw that I have no chance of having a productive conversation.

By "draw" I did not mean to imply that our positions were equal. Nor did I mean that I was even close to agreeing with your positions. What I meant was that by your last post, I saw that I have no chance of having a productive conversation.

"Productive" does not mean conversion. Our enimies will and do exploit any weakness they can, and no matter what, we can not save them all. That border is our Achillies heel, to our economy, and to the safety of our nation. That is the point I never miss.

The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

JPH wrote:Most of the enemies you speak of are in your head and innocent people suffer because of it. The conversation is not productive because it requires I play along with your irrational fears.

"But I do have fear of what come through that border. You say clumsy attempts? There have been a lot of them. How successful do they need to be before you take them seriously? Do you hae a minumum death toll? Does it need to be bloody, like a bomb? Or would anthrax do? Maybe just a few terrorists, with a couple of hundred pounds of C4? That could be done on horse back." There need only be one, to be much too real.

The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

How many have to die at the hands of an Islamic terrorist who snuck across the mexican border before I'd favor remote control machine guns? Let's start with one. Once again, the facts are that ALL incidents of Islamic terrorism on US soild have been at the hands of US citizens or people with documentation.

Your argeument is that a sealed border is worth the human toll if it prevents one death at the hands of a terrorist. This is the same argument that gun control advocates make. They say a gun ban is worth it if it only prevents one accidental gun death. They ignore that gun control kills more people than it saves and you ignore that the border fence kills more prople than it saves as well.

Now really, is there anything new here or are we just going to rehash the same old crap?

Having a sealed border is no different than you having locks and door on your house. You certainly don't want anyone entering your home uninvited or breaking in, and you darn sure want to know WHO'S in your home when you do invite them!

You may not mind uninvited people breaking in and wandering in and out your home as they see fit, but I sure do.

I did post it before, that would be the reason for the quote marks I added. You ignored it the first time. Besides, you jerk my chain each time you want illegals to pass our borders unvetted. And that was not my arrgument. We have a working system in place now. Use it. If that system can' handle the load, then close the border. Emergration is a controlled flow problem. If a pipe burst, you must shut off the flow. There is no other way. You understand, I only have to be right once, while you have to be right every single time?

The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

kellory wrote: I only have to be right once, while you have to be right every single time?

You lost me, please explain what you mean here.

You are vetting all people who wish to come through that border, sight unseen. . You claim they are all harmless sufferer seeking aid and it is your duty to help them circumvent our immigration system because it's too hard or cost too much, or it's too slow, and they need our help now. you with me so far? Ok, if one of those "sufferers" happens to be a holy warrior, infected with a biological, and the checkpoint stops him, then it is contained. If one walks across unknown, millions could die before it can be stopped, or contained. It only takes one. I am betting there is one, and plan accordingly, you are betting there are none, and want to walk around the checkpoints. You are vouching for the harmlessness of every single person whom you want to slip past those safeguards. I only have to be right once, to contain this very possible attack. You have to be right every single time, to contain the same attack. My odds are a hell of a lot better than yours. Anthrax, smallpox, even the flu could be weaponized. And that is just one kind of attack. Bomb components for a large bomb, either Oklahoma style Fertilizer type with just the trigger mechanism needed to be carried, or even a dirty bomb? O get a dozen guys through and high jack a couple more planes? Think as a terrorist. How would I do this thing? You want to roll out the red carpet, I want to frisk them before they hit the velvet rope. Think of this as a small teams military operation, how would you do it. My Iranian cousin passes for Mexican all the time because he doesn't want it known where he is from. It is very simple to pass as something you are not. One false emigrant could do an enormous amount of damage. That border has as many holes as a colander, as your illegals prove every day. Take it seriously, because it is. .

The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

Going over the same ground, time and time again and again is really wearing me out. Using the "long war" strategy to tire out the opposition while never actually winning a battle is smart, I'll give you that.

Anyway, If I were the head of Al Quiedea and one of my lieutenants came up with a plan to infiltrate the US by way of the Mexican border, I'd cut his head off myself. He's too stupid to be of any use. Yes, with a trained and determined team we could easy cross that way, in spite of your silly fence (mines and machine guns) but it is too expensive and risky.

My first plan would be to use the internet to incite US citizens to launch homegrown jihad. It is low yield but the cost and risk are zero. Secondly I would use the internet to recruit US citizens to travel to my training camps around the world, then send them back with their citizenship in tact and the ability to deliver a harder blow on US soil. Once I'd run those options down, I would simply have my operatives obtain visas as students, businessmen or even refugees and enter with legal documentation. Our Saudi financiers can afford it. There are plenty of guns, chemicals, and box cutters lying around in the US that my cells can put to use. Lastly, if I was really desperate and had no other options, I'd simply have my cells hike or canoe across the Canadian border unchecked.

Until you and the other xenophobes call for the fortification of the Canadian border, I will continue to call out the BS of your position. This is not about keeping terrorists out. This is not about keeping immigrants out. This is about keeping Latin Americans out. I'm being generous by calling it xenophobia. Remember that is the irrational fear of outsiders. There is another name for the irrational fear and hatred of other races/ethnicity. Again, I assume nothing about you but there are red flags.

I don't think every immigrant is innocent. That's just silly. But to consider every immigrant to be a drug kingpin or terrorist is like claiming that the haystack is worthless because there might be a needle in it.